Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Many folks on here have the Canon 17-40mm L lens. I really like mine, but out of the box this lens seems soft. Has anyone had to send theirs in to Canon for realignment? I use it with a 5D btw.
I have a sturdy Manfrotto tripod, and my 70-200mm 2.8 is so sharp I still marvel, so I'm fairly sure it's the lens. Do I send it in, or is that the nature of the lens? I can pull out decent sharpness once I get the image into Photoshop. Guess I'm spoiled by my 70-200mm. Any thoughts or past experience is much appreciated. Thanks!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM
The lens does best in the f/8 to f/16 range. What setting do you typically use?
I understand that there have been some that are soft at every f stop . I also have the 17 -40mm on my 20D and mine works the best from f8 - f11 .
Posted by Zack Schnepf on March 16, 2008 at 10:27 PM
There have been reports of some bad copies of the lens out there. My first copy was a bit soft, I didn't realize it till I broke it on a trip to the southwest(on accident), when I got my new copy I realized it was sharper than the previous one.
I have had mine since December and it has seen no real shooting time. However I am not very impressed with what I have taken. It does seem to do well up close however that is of little use for me. I have a photo workshop in two weeks so I will send mine off after that and have it aligned and let you all know what if any differences I see. Perhaps I can do some before and after shots.
When I use the 17-40, I use it at between f8 and f14 (maximum). My version has really center sharpness as good as the 24-70L and the 24mm TSE. But the edges, ouch! The 24mm TSE has a large image circle so the edge sharpness is tack across the frame, but the 17-40 really suffers in edge sharpness on a full frame camera even if you have a 'good' copy of the lens. Darwin
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Darwin, that's IT. That's the problem I'm seeing, the really bad edge sharpness. I looked at several images and I did some tests, and at 40mm @ f/8, the sharpness almost rivals the 50mm 1.4 @f/8 (seriously). But oy vey, at 17mm the edges get pretty squishy especially at the extreme ends of the f-stop range. However, in the f/8-f/14 range it's not the worst, and when I apply a three-pass sharpening technique I'm experimenting with, the results are OK in that 8-14 range. I guess I'm seeing the only disadvantage to a FF sensor... it really demands the lens to perform edge to edge.
Based on Zack having a soft and sharp copy (ouch, rough way to find out!), I'll probably send this in to Canon and see if it improves. I'll post the results in case anyone else is wanting to know if that route is worth the effort. But thanks EVERYBODY for your replies, it all helped... can't really get this kind of info at a camera store (does anyone shop in a camera store anymore?).
My experience with the 17-40 is on par with Darwin's.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 17, 2008 at 5:07 PM
LOL! I think I have Darwin's lens in my bag by mistake, he explained it so accurately.
I guess the answer is springing for the 16-35mm? Oy.
I know, I'll use a 3-slot Cokin P holder, and just crop out the black on each side, and voila, the soft edges are gone from the image. OK, just kidding...
I'm going to take the chance and have Canon "fix" whatever they can fix. I have my first trip to Arches and Canyonlands in May, so I hope they get it back to me in time. Be interesting to see if realignment improves edge softness.
I just tested the 16-35 MArk II - I wouldn't have my expectations too high as that lens is only marginally better (barely discernable) than the 17-40. A post on thhe results will follow soon - IMO the 16-35 is a SUPER overpriced BAD performer and Canon wide zooms basically bite big time (at least on FULL FRAME cameras). Darwin
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 18, 2008 at 8:23 PM
REALLY!? Man, that's a disappointment. I look forward to seeing that post. You know, I have been able to get some decent quality out of the 17-40mm (for web posting) but it sure takes some added PS work.The big 5D RAW file (1Ds MKIII owners are giggling right now) does help so you can oversharpen and then condense down, thanking Marc A for that trick. It'd just be nice to get the image sharp in camera. Some folks claim super sharp copies. Let's see what Canon can do with mine (I think I hear the Jaws theme faintly in the BG).
Side note for Buck Ward: just for kicks, see if you can test drive a 70-200mm non-IS... I've heard the non-IS version wins there. Mine is so sharp it's crazy, but that may just be a fortunate pick of the crop. GGGRRRRRRR, if Canon could just tighten up the lens QC...
After thinking about this thread , i decided to test my lens . I noticed that it was not as sharp as it should be , so i sent both my canon 20D and my 17-40mmf4L back to canon to be calibrated .
Here is what the work orders said , that came back with my camera and lens .
Canon 20D
We have examined the product according to your request, and , it was found that the adjustment of the AF assembly was incorrect. Electrical adjustemt were carried out on the AF assembly.
14-40mm f4L
The Adjustment of the lens assembly was incorrect and the lens assembly was reprogrammed and other adjustments and cleaning and other mechanical adjustments were carried out.
The camera/lens is now VERY VERY sharp and it only took around 8 days from the time i mailed my camera and lens to the day it was returned . My camera was a refurbished camera and did not have a canon warranty , but they repaired it at no cost. I was very impressed with everyone i talked to by phone and e-mail. THANK YOU CANON !!!!
Rob, THANKS for posting this. I had wanted to send mine in but was concerned it wouldn't get back in time for a business trip to Colorado next week.
I did call Canon about doing the calibration and they did suggest sending the camera in with the lens. Now I see why. You would think a $700 lens would be sharp, and it obviously has the capability (I'm very happy for you BTW!).
This raises one new question: my 70-200mm 2.8 is tremendously sharp, almost uncanny. If I send the 5D and 17-40mm into Canon and they line it all up, does the camera adjustment performed then jeapordize the quality I get with the 70-200mm? I might ring 'em back and ask.
Rob, if you ever get a chance, it would be interesting to see how your lens performs on another Canon body. Maybe it's more the body and not so much the lens?
I rented a 17-40L for a trip to central Oregon a few years back and I was very disappointed in the performance. all the images I took with it were noticeably soft and lacking detail. So when the time came to buy a wide angle, I bought a Tamron 17-50 and I'm very pleased with it. It gets a tad soft at the extreme apertures, but even then it is sharper than the 17-40 L that I rented.
Discussion
16 repliesI have a sturdy Manfrotto tripod, and my 70-200mm 2.8 is so sharp I still marvel, so I'm fairly sure it's the lens. Do I send it in, or is that the nature of the lens? I can pull out decent sharpness once I get the image into Photoshop. Guess I'm spoiled by my 70-200mm. Any thoughts or past experience is much appreciated. Thanks!
Guy
Based on Zack having a soft and sharp copy (ouch, rough way to find out!), I'll probably send this in to Canon and see if it improves. I'll post the results in case anyone else is wanting to know if that route is worth the effort. But thanks EVERYBODY for your replies, it all helped... can't really get this kind of info at a camera store (does anyone shop in a camera store anymore?).
Paul
I guess the answer is springing for the 16-35mm? Oy.
I know, I'll use a 3-slot Cokin P holder, and just crop out the black on each side, and voila, the soft edges are gone from the image. OK, just kidding...
I'm going to take the chance and have Canon "fix" whatever they can fix. I have my first trip to Arches and Canyonlands in May, so I hope they get it back to me in time. Be interesting to see if realignment improves edge softness.
Side note for Buck Ward: just for kicks, see if you can test drive a 70-200mm non-IS... I've heard the non-IS version wins there. Mine is so sharp it's crazy, but that may just be a fortunate pick of the crop. GGGRRRRRRR, if Canon could just tighten up the lens QC...
Here is what the work orders said , that came back with my camera and lens .
Canon 20D
We have examined the product according to your request, and , it was found that the adjustment of the AF assembly was incorrect. Electrical adjustemt were carried out on the AF assembly.
14-40mm f4L
The Adjustment of the lens assembly was incorrect and the lens assembly was reprogrammed and other adjustments and cleaning and other mechanical adjustments were carried out.
The camera/lens is now VERY VERY sharp and it only took around 8 days from the time i mailed my camera and lens to the day it was returned . My camera was a refurbished camera and did not have a canon warranty , but they repaired it at no cost. I was very impressed with everyone i talked to by phone and e-mail. THANK YOU CANON !!!!
Rob, THANKS for posting this. I had wanted to send mine in but was concerned it wouldn't get back in time for a business trip to Colorado next week.
I did call Canon about doing the calibration and they did suggest sending the camera in with the lens. Now I see why. You would think a $700 lens would be sharp, and it obviously has the capability (I'm very happy for you BTW!).
This raises one new question: my 70-200mm 2.8 is tremendously sharp, almost uncanny. If I send the 5D and 17-40mm into Canon and they line it all up, does the camera adjustment performed then jeapordize the quality I get with the 70-200mm? I might ring 'em back and ask.
Rob, if you ever get a chance, it would be interesting to see how your lens performs on another Canon body. Maybe it's more the body and not so much the lens?
Paul